Exclusion Does Not Equal Discrimination

According to White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, “Governor Romney is for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would enshrine discrimination into our founding legal document.” What he is referencing in that sentence is Romney’s support for an amendment that would prohibit marriage between homosexuals.

I am upset by his word choice. Not allowing gays to marry does not automatically constitute discrimination. Discrimination would occur if we were prohibiting gay marriage because most of society found it immoral, but if there is government interest to create families, then marriage benefits become an incentive. Exclusion does not always equal discrimination.

If Carney considers this proposed amendment discriminatory, then he has other problems to worry about, because the Constitution already enshrines discrimination. Yes, the Twenty-sixth Amendment is, in fact, full of age discrimination, as it excludes minors from the voting process. However, this is allowed because it is in the government’s interest to have an age restriction. The same should apply to banning gay marriage. Sure, an amendment prohibiting gay marriage would definitely have a disparate impact on homosexuals, but a disparate impact does not amount to discrimination; there are good excuses for causing disparate impacts, like business necessity. The opinion in Grutter v. Bollingerprovides an example of “exclusion without discrimination” that liberals may like more than my previous ones. According to the Court, University of Michigan’s affirmative action policy was not discriminatory since, “by enrolling a ‘critical mass’ of underrepresented minority students, the policy [sought] to ensure their ability to contribute to the Law School’s character and to the legal profession.” Excluding non-minority students was thus not discriminatory, as it served a purpose beneficial to the Law School.

On February 22, 2012, District Court Judge Jeffrey White found that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) did not further a compelling government interest and was thus discriminatory, Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management. According to Golinski, a California resident, she was “denied marriage-based federal [health] benefits… in violation of her rights to equal protection.” However, the Court found back in 1996 that, “the Fourteenth Amendment’s promise that no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws must co-exist with the practical necessity that most legislation classifies for one purpose or another, with resulting disadvantage to various groups or persons,” Romer, 517 U.S. 631. DOMA does exclude homosexuals from access to federal marriage benefits, but it is not discriminatory because, despite Judge White’s assertion that DOMA does not pass heightened scrutiny, it does further a compelling government interest.

The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) of the U.S. House of Representatives argued the case against Golinski, reasoning that the government has an interest in “defend[ing] the institution of traditional heterosexual marriage,” because “only a man and a woman can beget a child together.” This is why cousins and siblings are not allowed to marry. If the government did not have an interest in regulating the institution, it would not care if relatives married, or if a man married his dog. Marriages between non-relative heterosexual couples are in the state’s interests because they usually lead to families with healthy children. This is why tax exemptions, health insurance, and deceased spouse’s social security benefits are given to married couples; they are carrots.

Judge White fails to see how DOMA promotes the government’s interests, because “denial of recognition and withholding of marital benefits to same-sex couples does nothing to support opposite-sex parenting.” According to Judge White’s logic, if incentives are offered to one group of people then they must be offered to every group. This is poor reasoning, which is why his ruling that DOMA does not further government interests is wrong.

Prohibiting gay marriage does exclude homosexuals from participating in the time-honored tradition of marriage, but since the government uses the institution of marriage as an incentive to procreate and raise children in traditional families, exclusion in this case is not the same as discrimination, because government interests outweigh the “equal protection” granted to citizens by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Related Posts

36 Comments

Max
on May 15, 2012 at 5:43 pm

“Discrimination would occur if we were prohibiting gay marriage because most of society found it immoral”

I think this is the major flaw in the argument mainly because the main defense of it being illegal is because most of society finds it immoral. While your justifications here on out are fairly reasonable, I think this is where lies the problem.

If the question posed was, “Do you think there is a sufficient practical reason for gays to not be allowed to marry beyond the moral implications” I do not believe you could get the votes out to pass any of these legislations. As a result, while it is possible to pass gay marriage legislation without it being for moral reasons, the issue is that is not the case here and thus the analysis is irrelevant.

Furthermore,
““defend[ing] … carrots.”
1. However we are not denying people who cannot have kids together (IE people who are infertile, marriage at the age of 60) from marrying or even attempting to if you argue it is impossible to do such. As a result, there is no unique government interest reason for discriminating against this minority.
2. It’s not why cousins and siblings aren’t allowed to marry. Ask someone why they should not be allowed to, I bet you get morality more often than not. And yes they would for dogs… because dogs cannot give consent.
3. There is no proof that non-relative heterosexual couples provide better families than homosexual families, and even if there was this is still a horrible standard. The argument begets a slippery slop that the government has a compelling interest in producing the best society. If that is true, then any law that you want passed can be passed on that standard and that has to be extremely chilling to any true conservative.

On a final note,
“This is poor reasoning, which is why his ruling that DOMA does not further government interests is wrong.”
Seriously? First you are using wrong wrongly, but I can even overlook that and assume you mean poor judgement. But breaking a court decision down to one sentence, not even analyzing and just deeming it wrong without any context is a horrible response to any court case.

I realized the elderly and infertile counterargument when I wrote this, but I figured that it is probably too costly / impractical to try to regulate heterosexuals on that level, while it is just easier to say no to homosexuals (none of which can procreate). Also, this argument was put forth by members of Congress, so I used it as an example of government interests for that reason (if you don’t like it, take it up with them). But, yea, I do see your point. Thanks for actually saying something logical instead of spewing forth idiotic ideas and insults like some people do quite often.

And I wrote three paragraphs concerning the case, with a paragraph explaining the “one sentence” that you said was backed up with no analysis:

Judge White fails to see how DOMA promotes the government’s interests, because “denial of recognition and withholding of marital benefits to same-sex couples does nothing to support opposite-sex parenting.” According to Judge White’s logic, if incentives are offered to one group of people then they must be offered to every group. This is poor reasoning, which is why his ruling that DOMA does not further government interests is wrong.

Sorry, my response to this was a bit over the top. Basically, I can understand how you respond to this court case but I wish you fleshed out the argument more, and elaborated on the quote. I think it is misconstruing his argument, and you are not providing sufficient analysis to say why the entire court decision is wrong even if this one point is.

From what I remember (was too lazy to refind the entire court decision) this was a nuanced response to one part of the law. What I found was
“to the extent Congress was interested merely in encouraging responsible procreation and child-rearing by opposite-sex married couples, a desire to encourage opposite sex couples to procreate and raise their own children well would not provide a legitimate reason for denying federal recognition of same-sex marriages. The denial of recognition and withholding of marital benefits to same-sex couples does nothing to support opposite-sex parenting”

In the instance you referenced the judge was only talking about one part of the law and saying that the law doesn’t uphold its own prong 2. ” (2) defending and nurturing the institution of traditional, heterosexual marriage;”

My point is two fold (and I realize I did not make it clear before)
1. That you are taking the quote out of context when using it as such.
2. That even if he is wrong on that account, it is still not sufficient reason to say his decision is wrong, or even that it is incorrect.

Adam
on May 15, 2012 at 7:19 pm

Oh, okay, yea, I see that. I made it look like that was his only reason in issuing the decision he did. I thought I had explained away his other reasoning above, with the BLAG paragraph and such, so I summed it up with that one sentence, but maybe that should have been separate from the “denial of recognition…” paragraph. Thanks for pointing out the confusion.

Chelle
on May 15, 2012 at 8:57 pm

“I realized the elderly and infertile counterargument when I wrote this, but I figured that it is probably too costly / impractical to try to regulate heterosexuals on that level, while it is just easier to say no to homosexuals (none of which can procreate).”

No really, couples already have to apply for a marriage license. It would be easy to just deny if a couple can not prove their fertiity.

What you’re neglating to admit is that there would be major backlash if the government tried to implement marriage only for children producers.

That’s because marriage is for the two consenting adults entering into the legal contract, not the kids being produced.

Chelle
on May 14, 2012 at 6:26 pm

So your argument is that is not discrimination by stating the government has the right to discrimate? Because that makes no sense.

As for the definition of family and marriage – they’re bascially units of humans with ties, legally and sometimes biologically. There are families without kids (because they don’t want to or cant), families with gay parents and kids, etc. As long as the family unit is harming each other, the government should say out.

Again, its not up to the government to govern based on Christian/religious beliefs.

No, my argument that it is not discrimination is based on Grutter and Romer. If it isn’t discrimination to exclude qualified white people because that doesn’t serve the interest of promoting diversity, then it isn’t discrimination to exclude minors from voting, and it isn’t discrimination to exclude blacks from trying out for the part of George W. Bush in the movie “W”. Why, because there is a reason. That’s why disparate impact is okay, and not against the law, if it serves a “necessity.” I don’t understand how people are so blind as to see that exclusion is not always discrimination.

And I’m not promoting Christian based governance. Procreation and child development is not Christian, it is human. Furthermore, families are the smallest form of government, and so it is the government’s right to classify who can get married, get benefits from it, and run a household.

Affirmative action doesn’t exclude white people. Can it be used to exclude individual white people? Sure, but schools that employ affirmative action still have a majority of white people. Discrimation would be “no white people” rather than a mix of white and other races. So comparing the gay marriage to affirmative action doesn’t work – making one illegal dicriminates against a whole minority group while making the other legal hopefully prevents dicrimation to another minority group.

Further, discrimation is giving perfered treatment to one group over another. Stating that only straight couples can have kids and thus only deserve the ability to marry is discrimating.

The concept that marriage and families is only for potintial offspring is a religious concept. Not all couples who marry have kids (nor do we require them) and not all parents are married.

Finally, I laugh at conservatives and their desiree for small government while they ask for the government to regulate other people’s lives. Hypocritical much?

Adam
on May 14, 2012 at 9:38 pm

News flash, not all conservatives are for small government. I am a social conservative first and foremost and favor the expansion of government (especially judicial) power. Sure, I think it should be downsized in spending and actual logistical size, but government is there to do what – to govern – in a way that protects the interests of those who support it, and in democracies elect it.

Chelle
on May 14, 2012 at 11:00 pm

Dude, one of the defining characteritics of the conservative party aka Republicans is the need for small government. Just because you go against the norm does not mean I’m wrong about the general ideals of the party.

If that’s your only counter argument to the points I made, I consider your overall argument meaningless then.

Matthew
on May 15, 2012 at 5:01 am

Adam, remember who you are talking to.

To say Chelle is mentally retarded would be an insult to those who actually are. She is much, much worse. It’s why I don’t talk to her anymore.

Chelle
on May 15, 2012 at 2:28 pm

Oh Matt, how low you’ve fallen. Personally attacking someone while decrying the use of personal attacks on another article? Then again, should I be surprised by your hypocrisy?

It’s become perfect clear that you have no actual insight into the gay marriage discussion. Everything you’ve brought has been refuted (tell me again where animals can legally consent?) or in factual (homosexuality is comparable to pedophilia) or heavily biased (nobody cares if homosexuality is against your morals – the world does not revolve around you) or hypocritical (stating that we can’t give preference to people based on who they sleep with while promoting marriage as a heterosexual thing based on who they sleep with).

It’s getting to the point where its painfully obvious that you clearly have issues with sexuality and gender. You know how Conservatives say they hate when people say their closeted gays simply because they’re against gay rights? Yea, you’re one of those fellow conservatives they wish would shut up because you make it difficult to deny it.

You really should look into some help. It’s not healthy to be this obsessed with homosexuality. It’s not even that you’re against gay marriage at this point – you clearly hate them and are not contributing anything to either side of the conversation. Even your fellow supporter thinks you need to back off.

As Jared suggests, everyone should “just ignore this drivel you seem to insist is a reasonable discussion.”

Unfortunately, you’ll keep at it on this site, adding nothing to the conversation, personally attacking people and making conservatives look like every stereotype people picture. Why no one has moderated you by now I don’t get – you add nothing. You are that kid who believes shouting is debating and who thinks he’s ignoring people by yelling “I’m talking to you!” *run up that person* “You hear me, I’m not talking to you!”

It was one thing where you were telling other commenters who to engage in (like someone appointed you the moderator of this site) but now you’re telling the author of the article? On a site whose purpose is to give college conservatives a voice?

Seriously, go get some help Matt.

(Counting down now to the next personal attack and announcement about how he’s totally not engaging with me, do you hear that Chelle? Not engaging with you!)

Adam
on May 15, 2012 at 7:16 pm

@Chelle: Tell me, how can a social conservative be for all-around small government when he wants regulation of social issues? Also, I am not a Republican. I am a conservative. Big difference. I vote Republican, sure, but only because we don’t have a National Front, or a party that is even more right-wing. And lets think about conservatives not being for big government; right-wing fascist dictators are usually social conservatives, aren’t they? And authoritarians are usually for big government, right?

Chelle
on May 15, 2012 at 7:42 pm

Social conservatives do it all the time with the excuse “State Rights!”

The main points of the Republican party is social conservatives, fiscal conservaties and achieving these things through limited federal government and letting states choose. These are basic things.

Now, this is not to say that there aren’t members in the party that differ. Fiscal conservatives and social liberals are common in the Republican party. But those are the basic defining characteristics and generally what their polices are based on.

But fine, you’re not a conservative that follows the status quo. Good for you. However, if you vote Republican, you’re voting for a party that favors limitted federal government, not expansive.

Also, I don’t find the US government system really comparable to directorships. Its very apples to oranges.

Anyway, sorry for calling you a Republican even though you vote Republican and write on polices that follow the Republican party rhetoric. My mistake!

Would you like to address my other points now or keep going on because I didn’t magically know what your personal politcal choices were? (Though if you mentioned it in the article, my mistake again! I skimmed through again and didn’t jump out at me.)

Chelle
on May 15, 2012 at 7:55 pm

(For the record, I agree with you on there being a disconnect between wanting the government to legistate socially conservative laws and wanting a limited government. Again, Republicans/conservatives get around this with the State Rights thing. Most because they’re banking on living in a state that is currently red.)

Adam
on May 15, 2012 at 8:01 pm

I addressed most of your concerns below in my response to Max. However, I don’t think you understand my point. Maybe you consider prohibiting gay marriage discrimination, but the government and Courts do not, so Carney should be careful about what he labels as discrimination. And you keep using discrimination when you mean to use exclusion (my article’s main point). The government can decide who to give incentives (carrots) to depending on its goals/interests. It does not have to give carrots to everyone (that is exclusion, but because it serves an interest, Romer says it is not discrimination – in the legal sense).

Chelle
on May 15, 2012 at 8:25 pm

Oh, I mean discrimination. I well aware of the word’s definition, which is giving prefered treatment to one group over another. Just because it’s government sanctioned discrimination doesn’t make it not discrimation.

Ever heard of Loving v. Virginia?

Adam
on May 15, 2012 at 9:47 pm

Loving deals with race, which is a suspect class. It also may have been government sanctioned racism, but it did not serve a legitimate government interest. If the Supreme Court explicitly says DOMA serves no legitimate interest whatsoever and that High Tech Gays is 100% invalid, then I will then label it discriminatory to oppose same sex marriage, but not until then.

Chelle
on May 15, 2012 at 10:24 pm

Also, Loving over turns Pace vs Alabama. Pace was up held before Loving because it was termed that there was a government benefit to keeping races seperate when it came to marriage.

Chelle
on May 15, 2012 at 10:23 pm

Ok, so if marriage law is based on the need to encourage procreation, then the government needs to ensure that is applied fairly. Since the government does not go to any lengths (like, seriously, none) to ensure that only couples that can and intend to procreate naturally and traditionally, then the law is being unfairly applied only to gay couples when it should be excluding infertialbe, couples who wish to remain childless, etc.

You’ve stated in a comment below that it is too difficult/costly/impractical to weed these people out but it is an unfair application of the law. Its discrimating against homosexual couples while allowing hetero couples who are violating the point of marriage to get married.

As a side note, as a social conservative, I’m sure the government has up held laws that go against your conversative stance but are justifiable for a greater good cause. How do you decide which side wins out? (Hope that makes sense.)

Homosexuals are not disqualified from marriage merely because they cannot procreate, because, as I pointed out, not all marriages or even marriage in general require or necessitate that people procreate or have families beyond those that marry into it.

But distinction and discrimination are different. You’re trying to distinguish homosexuals as not right for marriage merely because they cannot procreate, which is unfair and inequal on its face.

If homosexuals can meet the basic criteria of monogamy, fidelity and the like that exist with the most nominal and simple definition of marriage, then your exclusion is not justified or necessary and the government’s supposed vested interest is missing the point of marriage’s more general benefits of maintaining stability of relationships in general.

footsoldier
on May 14, 2012 at 1:44 pm

The question becomes moot if The Federalist No. 10 is used to judge the need of a Federal law. While I disagree with SSM, it should be a matter of States rights. This is yet another area where the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES NOT BELONG. The Federal Government should recognise where recognised by the States and otherwise keep its nose out of it. Uh oh, this Republican footsoldier is sounding like a PAULBOT. One must admit, he the Libertarian occassionally makes sense.

Couldn’t the government simply make it a matter of common law marriage? Admittedly this would negate the states’ individual rights in some sense, but then, it seems to me that we shouldn’t allow the states to be discriminatory in their marriage laws, especially in terms of things that aren’t negatively affecting marriage. Heck, at least 16 or so states have marriage laws that permit marriage between first cousins. How many people here find that moral or permissible? And yet it’s the case. I may have a personal ick factor to cousin marriage, though there are states that only permit it with genetic counseling, which is at least a buffer to inbreeding and resultant birth defects.

No, marriage has evolved. Your persistent refusal to even remotely acknowledge that is your own problem. If you procreate and are willing to take care of the child, is that not conducive to the family values you hold in such esteem and yet neglect to consider that they can exist outside of marriage, at least temporarily, since marriage is a big decision in itself along with parenthood?

I didn’t say they had open definitions, but any word’s definition will adjust with time and culture to an extent. This isn’t to say there aren’t some basic limitations, but a rigid and unwavering attachment to antiquated definitions is not helping anyone but people who are insecure and can’t think for themselves as to what marriage is throughout time. If you insist on denying gay people the right to be “married” and get both the title and rights because you think they can’t have families, I don’t think we need to talk anymore. You may have to clarify what exactly you think about gays adopting, having families and being in monogamous relationships, which they can do, contrary to myths that continue to propagate.

People called them gay as a slur, just as the word queer and faggot were used as denigrating terms when they didn’t originally have those meanings. This already demonstrates my point that words are mutable, even if they are also somewhat concrete, paradoxical as that sounds.

Gays aren’t claiming it was originally theirs, but they are laying a claim to it in ways that could be done with any community of people with shared characteristics. White people seem to like being associated with Christianity, even though there’s always other races and ethnicities that have their own cultures developed in Christianity. Gay people using the term nowadays associated with their sexuality is only going to be changed if you try to use it in a sense that was original, if you think that’s how it should be. I wouldn’t hold my breath about us going back to that word for happy, since language, like definitions, evolves over time and culture. This doesn’t mean it’s a free for all, but it does mean things will change, even if it’s slight at times, like marriage including gay people and potentially stopping there for a good amount of history, since it would take much longer for polygamy to be accepted and structured as marriage, I imagine.

I’m not hijacking the word. You haven’t been reading any of my posts critically, have you? We have common ground, much more than you think, if we listed positions side by side. But you keep antagonizing and demonizing everything in a contrarian fashion just to try to get a rise out of me, which you won’t, since I’ve dealt with this sort of crap in one form or another in a civil manner online and offline over the years I’ve gotten into discussing this issue in particular, among others.

I’m not one of those who thinks illegal is a racist term absolutely. If you use it in a racist sense, perhaps it could be construed that way, but I’m not going to make a blanket statement.

Perhaps you could treat me with the same courtesy I’m treating you. We have common ground on some issues, I’d say, even if we disagree on specific details. Instead of always dividing us apart, perhaps we can find somewhere to come together on something like this. We both oppose no fault divorce laws, I imagine. That’s the bigger threat to marriage and family values by association to me. You don’t take it seriously if you think you can get divorced for no reason whatsoever.

No one is making you agree with the notion of marriage equality, but you cannot legislate marriage inequality without rational and secular reasons alongside what amount to irrational and religious alongside each other. Don’t misunderstand, religion can be rational in its potential interweaving with philosophy, but I’m not going to pull punches and call religion in and of itself rational, because it isn’t. But I also won’t go on a tangent.

Point is, you need sound and valid reasons to prevent people who don’t differ from you except in their sexual orientation from getting married and experiencing both the joys and the sorrows of that institution. Is it really so bad if gays want to “hijack” something they agree with in terms of monogamy and fidelity to each other, many times before a God they believe in as much as you?

No, Jared. If you think we should just give in to sexual perversion and accept it you are out of your g*d*mn mind.

I have seen this behavior and the world created around and it has no place in a rational, civilized society. NO. PLACE. Do you understand that?

Do you understand the FACT if you give the homosexuals what they want, right behind them are the pedophiles? You have the b*llsh*t Rind study that nearly the entire United States House of Representatives condemned (with the exception of about five, including open homosexual Barney Frank). You have Judith Levine’s HARMFUL TO MINORS. And you have NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association, whose members consist of–take a wild guess.

If you feel you have nothing more to say to me, it is only because your mind is seriously f*ck*d up and you are not man enough to admit it. Don’t say there is anything wrong with me because, remember *I* am not the one advocating the abandonment of common sense and morality for the benefit of behavioral retards.

As I said before, homosexuality is not perversion and your mere assertion that it is does not constitute an argument except in a childish debate.

You have seen exaggerations and excessive homosexuals. I doubt you’ve seen the everyday homosexual just trying to make a living and raise a family in any sense. You’ve seen only what the conservative media wants you to view in order to demonize all homosexuals, which is a composition fallacy. The whole is not judged by the parts. I don’t judge all Christians or theists or conservatives by your poor example, so you shouldn’t judge all homosexuals based on what may be bad people in that they’re trying to claim more than they deserve. But not all homosexuals are like that, like not all Christians are like you.

You’re making generalizations here. Pedophiles are not necessarily gay and gays are not even remotely in the same ballpark as pedophiles in terms of sexual normalcy, since children, as we’ve said time and time again, cannot consent or understand sexual acts with the maturity that an adult can with experience and cogency.

I am not advocating letting homosexuals do whatever they want and your mischaracterization of my position only reflects that you have poor reading comprehension or just lash out irrationally at what you think to be an enemy, when I would agree with you that pedophiles should not be given the right to marry children, but homosexuals are NOT the same as pedophiles even remotely speaking.

If I felt I was mistaken, I would not speak with such confidence. But you have failed to show that I am in any way deranged beyond your narrow-minded notion of what is normal.

I did nothing of the sort. You haven’t even argued why it is perversion, which it isn’t. It hurts no one but insecure people like you who seem a bit too concerned with what people do in their bedrooms for your own good

You know what IS childish? Saying that people who support traditional marriage are poison to society.

Tori
on May 15, 2012 at 7:11 pm

I don’t really understand the correlation you’re imagining between homosexuals and pedophiles. Does the acceptance of heterosexual relationships promote heterosexual molestation? You are aware that rape and molestation by members of the opposite sex occur at least as frequently as the same crimes committed by members of the same sex, aren’t you?

While the logic would seem to work at a casual glance, the problem is you’re boiling down marriage to a fairly simplistic source and justification for its existence. While procreation is something related with marriage, it can be done outside of it and still be conducive to the family institution as it stands, which I would strongly argue includes same sex couples raising children that are biologically theirs in part or adopted children.

If you donate sperm or eggs and they’re fertilized and adopted, is that child suddenly not valuable in terms of the family in U.S. society? Of course not, and we can agree on that even if we don’t agree about the morality or permissibility of other acts, such as smoking marijuana or restricting religious involvement in secular civil politics.

A gay couple fits the basic definition of marriage in the sense of a couple who is in love and wishes to commit themselves to each other in the eyes of the state and/or God and will remain faithful to each other. I don’t see how raising children is absolutely integral to marriage, considering the rearing of children was more for the purpose of lineage when marriage existed in its original forms as opposed to nurturing a part of a family and providing for it in and of itself, regardless of it is passed on your name or not. Not to mention how the woman in the “marriage” was regarded as property moreso than an equal partner in the contract.

Today marriage has evolved beyond simply a way to guarantee your name will continue on with children and blending families in a patriarchal structure. It is about people pledging their love to each other and, in many but not all cases, raising a family, among other things. Children are not essential to proving a couple loves each other, but it can result from it, of course.

There’s also the matter of property and such that is shared between a married couple. From what little I understand about the process, there is a sense of shared property, not to mention many times shared bank accounts among other things. Shared income, etc.

There is also the issue of paying more in taxes when you’re married, but that isn’t what is being debated here. What is at contest is what marriage’s overall purposes are. It certainly can’t be boiled down to one singular aspect, such as childrearing. If it had to be done, I would say it comes down to fidelity and monogamy, which a gay couple would be doing, contrary to any ridiculous and overblown stereotypes or rumors about gay people.

The aspect of childrearing is important in the sense of nurturing and raising children with values, I can agree with you on those points. But just because the family who raises the child might not be biologically related to them at all, or might be two men, two women or even one man or one woman by themselves, does not mean that is not a family. It seems with this argument on family to boil down to this: since gays cannot procreate, they do not deserve marriage as a title or the strict associations that come with it,”

But this presupposes that family and marriage are interwoven in defining each other. This isn’t the case absolutely. Family is far more complicated a concept than children that are raised by association of marriage. Many families result from marriage, but I would propose that many families can come from broken marriages or not even getting married to start with. I’m not advocating reckless sex outside of marriage, though I don’t think it is immoral. It is irresponsible and missing the point of what relationships are leading up to: trust, commitment and social groups built from them. If it is just about sex, then it reduces things to purely physical and impulsive behaviors, which even I cannot see as reasonable being an atheist. Our psychological needs should be considered as well and bonding with other human beings on deeper levels is part of that.

Family comes from that, but marriage and family do not absolutely require each other, nor do they need each other to stand apart in a sense. They are connected laterally, not lineally. Families do not result from marriage and marriage doesn’t result from families. If families are simplified, but still qualified as a couple that is committed to each other consensually and may choose, but are not required either by social norms or law to have children either by adoption or biological means, then this only includes gay couples. It doesn’t make pet marriage legal and polygamy would be another difficulty in rectifying what the word means, but I don’t want to go into another tangent.

Gay people are not threatening marriage, but if you are not treating them equally on something that does not warrant treating them inequally, then you are discriminating against them in an unfair sense.

Key point is you have to give a better answer for why gays cannot participate in marriage than, “They can’t make babies”

The most obvious problem with this post is your implied assertion the terms “family” and “marriage” have open definitions:

“While procreation is something related with marriage, it can be done outside of it and still be conducive to the family institution as it stands…”

“Today marriage has evolved….”

Uh, no. Outside forces, for their own, selfish benefit, wish to change what these words mean. But they don’t get to do that.

We already know what happens when this occurs. Homosexuals heroically showed their double standards when they took the word “gay” and turned it into something that had no relation to its original definition. And when others decided to take the word and make it synonymous with “stupid” we got a series of gay/stupid PSAs, with a group of people defined by their sexual behavior laying claim to a word that was never theirs to begin with.

And now, we have people trying to make the word “illegal” racist. Seriously.

Now, I may not be on the ground floor, but it is not too late to tell people who think they can hijack the words “family” and “marriage” and get away with it to go straight to hell. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200.

And, again, you might think two guys who do each other up the butt should have the “right” to marry, however I do not have to agree with it. Nor do anyone else.

Matthew, you had a great argument going there…until your last 2 paragraphs. Now you look petty, immature, and ignorant. Learn a little restraint.

Matthew
on May 14, 2012 at 4:40 pm

No, I don’t. I look like a guy who is absolutely fed up with the idea we are supposed to be submissive to perverts and their defenders because to do otherwise doesn’t fit in with THEIR definition of “Christian” or “conservative.”

But since when do THEY get to define for ME how the hell I am supposed to feel or act?? F*** them. The line is being drawn. Starting with me.

Homosexuals are not perverts. Perverts would be those who want to violate children or animals, who cannot consent to sexual acts to begin with or do not understand the sexual act with enough maturity to consent in any meaningful way. Two adults who happen to be attracted to each other and are the same sex is not perversion, it is a variation on human sexual practice that is still within normalcy and healthy sexuality.

I don’t try to define Christian, especially in terms of orthodoxy, since I’m not a Christian and prefer to study religion academically and philosophically, not in terms of theological squabbles of who’s saved and who’s damned. And I’m a conservative only so much as I’m a libertarian as well; that’s where we tend to disagree, I’ve found.

If you’re going to be immature and start throwing around swear words as if they justify your position, then I don’t think we need to talk anymore and I’ll just ignore this drivel you seem to insist is a reasonable discussion.

I’m not forcing you to think or act in a certain way, but merely try to understand a perspective different than your own. Is that going to kill you? I doubt it.